Monarchist discussion thread

[Yorkers]

The Adamses, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes, or Clintons would've all been the most likely candidates for royal house during their respective historical eras.

[Britanania]

Why would anyone want a President with power? A Prime Minister? Chancellor? What's the difference?

That the president has popular mandate given by a population consciously voting for a particular political platform, and is supposed to rise based on merit, not birth.

Srsly

Except, why is that a better way of choosing a leader? What difference is a "popular mandate given by a population the 51%who voted for a candidate" than a hereditary position?

[Lekya (Ancient)]

That the president has popular mandate given by a population consciously voting for a particular political platform, and is supposed to rise based on merit, not birth.

Srsly

Except, why is that a better way of choosing a leader? What difference is a "popular mandate given by a population the 51%who voted for a candidate" than a hereditary position?

Particularly when in either case there are other institutions with which the Head of State shares influence (this of course excludes those who would rejoice if Kim Jong Il were to style himself King-Beyond-the-Parallel)

[Unitaristic Regions]

Well, I would say no to the first question, but that's because I'm a communist.

Secondly, I would rather vote away an idiot than have to rise up in armed revolt every time my ruler turns out to be an idiot.

Ah, a communist. I see. So I take it you accept at least the basics of Marx's dialectical materialism as it relates to the history of sociopolitical systems?

I am actually not sure . I think there's a lot to be said for class analysis, which is actually mainstream in historical faculties. Consider the explicit divisions of feudal estates, or bourgeois culture in Victorian times, for example: there is good evidence for differentation of classes. But we Marxists tend to oversimplify, for example, I once heard a Marxist say how the Byzantine empire was 'stubbornly stuck in the antique period', as if all states just have to follow a certain track!

Then again, anti-structural Marxism is political theory I wholeheartedly ascribe to. For example: http://www.brill.com/impersonal-power. It uses case studies instead of theoretical generalizing.

One note, it's actually called 'historical' materialism. 'dialectical' materialism is usually considered a Stalinist invention .

[Daburuetchi]

Ah, a communist. I see. So I take it you accept at least the basics of Marx's dialectical materialism as it relates to the history of sociopolitical systems?

I am actually not sure . I think there's a lot to be said for class analysis, which is actually mainstream in historical faculties. Consider the explicit divisions of feudal estates, or bourgeois culture in Victorian times, for example: there is good evidence for differentation of classes. But we Marxists tend to oversimplify, for example, I once heard a Marxist say how the Byzantine empire was 'stubbornly stuck in the antique period', as if all states just have to follow a certain track!

Then again, anti-structural Marxism is political theory I wholeheartedly ascribe to. For example: http://www.brill.com/impersonal-power. It uses case studies instead of theoretical generalizing.

One note, it's actually called 'historical' materialism. 'dialectical' materialism is usually considered a Stalinist invention .

I mean scientific messianism is in itself a bourgeois idea and were part of the 19th century dogma Marx incorporated into his work.

[Daburuetchi]

How could you people betray Kaiser Willy and not vote Prussian Constitutionalism?

[Lekya (Ancient)]

How could you people betray Kaiser Willy and not vote Prussian Constitutionalism?

>betraying Tsar Nicky instead

[Daburuetchi]

How could you people betray Kaiser Willy and not vote Prussian Constitutionalism?

>betraying Tsar Nicky instead

Tsar Nicky is not my autocrat. He is an entente puppet and probably a pagan Rasputinist as well!

[Unitaristic Regions]

I am actually not sure . I think there's a lot to be said for class analysis, which is actually mainstream in historical faculties. Consider the explicit divisions of feudal estates, or bourgeois culture in Victorian times, for example: there is good evidence for differentation of classes. But we Marxists tend to oversimplify, for example, I once heard a Marxist say how the Byzantine empire was 'stubbornly stuck in the antique period', as if all states just have to follow a certain track!

Then again, anti-structural Marxism is political theory I wholeheartedly ascribe to. For example: http://www.brill.com/impersonal-power. It uses case studies instead of theoretical generalizing.

One note, it's actually called 'historical' materialism. 'dialectical' materialism is usually considered a Stalinist invention .

I mean scientific messianism is in itself a bourgeois idea and were part of the 19th century dogma Marx incorporated into his work.

Yes, very true.

[Old Tyrannia]

Why would anyone want a President with power? A Prime Minister? Chancellor? What's the difference?

That the president has popular mandate

Irrelevant. The monarch's mandate comes from tradition and the law of the land, which constitute a much firmer basis for government than the fickle opinion of the majority.

given by a population consciously voting for a particular political platform,

Which is generally the one they consider least bad out of the two options they're given.

and is supposed to rise based on merit, not birth.

The most meritorious people in the United States:

Why is popularity a fair measure of merit? It's not as if the public are exceptional judges of character. In practice electoral politics favour the characteristics of ambition, unscrupulousness, ability and willingness to deceive, and personal charisma, not to mention wealth without which being elected is nigh-impossible. All governments have a theoretically meritocratic element in the bureaucracy; in reality democracy does not insistently produce leaders of great talent. It's only real value is that it supplies leaders who are to some degree hostages to the needs of the public, who can remove leaders who don't respond to their needs. An executive constitutional monarchy provides this element in the form of an elected legislature that can represent the views of the public to the Crown and limit the power of the sovereign. More democracy is not needed.

The hereditary monarch, for their part, has the ability to be independent of the factionalism of electoral politics, representing all members of the state equally. The "lottery" element of heredity means unworthy heirs are occasionally thrown up, but not every democratic leader is flawless either, and monarchy allows a wider range of people to occupy the supreme office in terms of their characteristics, talents and interests. Hence we have the likes of Ludwig II, the eccentric king whose architectural contributions have made Bavaria's tourism industry boom; George III, whose interest in farming and the sciences helped spark the Agricultural Revolution in Britain; and Claudius, the stuttering outcast of the Imperial family who proved to be one of Rome's greatest emperors.

Srsly

You can mock us all you like, but you're simply following the ideals of the zeitgeist with blind faith, unable to look beyond the narrow confines of the contemporary orthodoxy. The perennial trend favours monarchism.

[Unitaristic Regions]

The monarch's mandate comes from tradition and the law of the land, which constitute a much firmer basis for government than the fickle opinion of the majority.

Which is exactly what they thought at the time of the Vienna Congress. It's a view that held at a time when people were illiterate peasants who thought that their despot was the deputy of God's aide;when the king was supported by a noble class which forbade their serfs from carrying weapons, and protected themselves by skulking in castles; when a leader's role was to provide stability and protection first, in a world where other magnates constantly preyed on their subject populations. We all know exactly how 'firm' the basis of government was after the Restoration. 1815- Europe was dominated by absolute monarchy, which continued to erode throughout the 19th century, until it was finally put out of its misery after the First World War.

Which is generally the one they consider least bad out of the two options they're given.

Hey, I'm not going to disagree that our current 'glorious elite' consists of corporate shills.

The most meritorious people in the United States:

(Image)

Yeah, I said 'supposed' merit. The question addressed at me was about prime ministers in general, not liberal democratic ones per se.

Why is popularity a fair measure of merit?

This is def. a fair point, to an extent. Trump is pretty popular right now, but I would doubt his merit. The point is more that kings have regularly been clinically insane- which popular leaders are usually not. And then again, I wouldn't call European leaders 'incapable'. Hollande, Merkel, Rutte, Rajos, Tsipras, etc, are not idiots (well, maybe except Hollande. Srsly, fuck that guy ). Their problem, if anything (excepting Tsipras), is exactly that they are too well-educated, too bureaucratic, too aloof, to be trusted or trustworthy. I don't doubt Merkel's abilities, I doubt her ideology.

... An executive constitutional monarchy provides this element in the form of an elected legislature that can represent the views of the public to the Crown and limit the power of the sovereign. More democracy is not needed.

... Except systems don't exist in a vacuum and elites would either move to cut off such representation or the legislature would push for popular power to increase its own power. There's a reason all succesful monarchies did not allow people any say in the comings and goings of government, instead relying on a class of nobles that kept the people down. High aristocrats were a tiny class: they could be controlled, as Louis XIV showed by forcing them all into his court.

You can't base a long-lasting monarchy with actual power on a modern popular basis, because people don't like being ruled. Not to romanticize- people def. like ruling, they just don't want to be ruled themselves. In every monarchy in Europe were the legislature was granted power (think England, France, Russia) it yearned to usurp the power of the monarch, little by little.

The hereditary monarch, for their part, has the ability to be independent of the factionalism of electoral politics, representing all members of the state equally.

If we go by data, namely history, no. He never was. Most kings didn't give a shit about their own people, except to toss them a few coins from time to time so they could go to heaven. Then 'Enlightened' despots actually tried to help them- and were so opposed in this by the nobility that their reforms were ultimately meaningless. The 'liberal' emperor of France (Napoleon III) in Victorian times tried to avoid this problem by indulging in populism and came to the unfortunate conclusion the the people don't care about your credentials if you don't give them results. When he lost the war with Prussia, he was deposed.

Historically all kings tried to align themselves with a group of elites, because they knew smaller groups are easier to control. Kings were never, ever, impartial, until constitutionalism emasculated them so utterly maneuvring for power had become meaningless.

The "lottery" element of heredity means unworthy heirs are occasionally thrown up, but not every democratic leader is flawless either, and monarchy allows a wider range of people to occupy the supreme office in terms of their characteristics, talents and interests.

Meh. Hitler was democratically elected (which validates your first statement) but so insane he was hardly 'mainstream', invalidating your second.

Hence we have the likes of Ludwig II, the eccentric king whose architectural contributions have made Bavaria's tourism industry boom;

And Friedrich von Hohenstaufen, whose suicidal and narcissistic ambition to actually be the Roman Emperor that he could never be, and to finally dominate the pope, caused a series of meaningless and ruinous wars in Italy;

George III, whose interest in farming and the sciences helped spark the Agricultural Revolution in Britain;

And of course Edward III, whose butthurt about losing Aquitaine and not being elected French king, caused him to start a ruinous war with France while of course not caring about the French or English people at all.

and Claudius, the stuttering outcast of the Imperial family who proved to be one of Rome's greatest emperors.

And of course Caligula or Nero.

Srsly

You can mock us all you like

I wasn't mocking monarchism, but the fact that the rhetorical question asked was hardly the best one. While I can be a smug asshole, I honestly take your ideology and you guys seriously. Well, except for that one guy that thought I was serious when I joked about re-empowering the Jesuits and prosecuting Protestants.

, but you're simply following the ideals of the zeitgeist with blind faith, unable to look beyond the narrow confines of the contemporary orthodoxy.

Yes, me, a communist, so blindly following the zeitgeist. It's almost as if I wasn't following an ideology that everyone automatically assumes to be at best naive, at worst genocidal. (Although, looking at NS, you'd assume that we've somehow infiltrated the whole of society.)

The perennial trend favours monarchism

.

What 'perennial' trend? That would assume monarchism was once interrupted on a large scale, only to rise gloriously from the ashes again. We've just had monarchies for a long-ass time. However, it would be legit to argue that dictatorships are perennial. Looking at Europe or Latin America, there does seem to be a tendency to revert into dictatorship whenever countries get instabile.

By your logic, we can expect to be hunter-gatherers again soon, since that was our existence for, well, most of our existence- much longer than living in a class society under monarchism.

[Pirelin]

The Adamses, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes, or Clintons would've all been the most likely candidates for royal house during their respective historical eras.

ugh, Queen Clinton I.

[NeuPolska]

Let's try to bring this thread back.

How would one go about restoring the monarchy of their once-proud-turned-republic home country?

[Engleberg]

Let's try to bring this thread back.

How would one go about restoring the monarchy of their once-proud-turned-republic home country?

I read somewhere that 52% of young Germans want the monarchy back; so possibly a change in the constitution could bring my homeland back to greatness.

[NeuPolska]

Let's try to bring this thread back.

How would one go about restoring the monarchy of their once-proud-turned-republic home country?

I read somewhere that 52% of young Germans want the monarchy back; so possibly a change in the constitution could bring my homeland back to greatness.

The Hohenzollerns are still quite alive and well, aren't they? I would personally welcome the return of the Kaiser, or Kaiserin, as well as the return of the old German flag.

Of course the current republic wouldn't be very appreciative of any efforts to restore the monarchy, so the question is how does one change the system?

[Tuthina]

Let's try to bring this thread back.

How would one go about restoring the monarchy of their once-proud-turned-republic home country?

In most cases, the odds are low. It is difficult to undo the republican mentality of the population after a certain point without the current government screwing up big time. The only successful restoration I know in the modern age is that of Cambodia, and it seems that the most likely restoration around would be that of Brazil.

[Engleberg]

I read somewhere that 52% of young Germans want the monarchy back; so possibly a change in the constitution could bring my homeland back to greatness.

The Hohenzollerns are still quite alive and well, aren't they? I would personally welcome the return of the Kaiser, or Kaiserin, as well as the return of the old German flag.

Of course the current republic wouldn't be very appreciative of any efforts to restore the monarchy, so the question is how does one change the system?

I'm not quite caught up on the laws of Germany, because I've never actually had a reason to. I would be extremely supportive of it, for my titles would actually give me powers in the nation again.

Maybe gradually install it, by keeping the Bundestag and Chancellor in place under the Kaiser like the old days.

[NeuPolska]

Let's try to bring this thread back.

How would one go about restoring the monarchy of their once-proud-turned-republic home country?

In most cases, the odds are low. It is difficult to undo the republican mentality of the population after a certain point without the current government screwing up big time. The only successful restoration I know in the modern age is that of Cambodia, and it seems that the most likely restoration around would be that of Brazil.

It seems to me that a good spokesman is what's needed, someone around thirty years of age, with extensive historical and political knowledge that supports monarchism and can hold an audience. If they push the right buttons and play off of complaints towards the republican government, monarchism could at least establish a good foothold.

[NeuPolska]

The Hohenzollerns are still quite alive and well, aren't they? I would personally welcome the return of the Kaiser, or Kaiserin, as well as the return of the old German flag.

Of course the current republic wouldn't be very appreciative of any efforts to restore the monarchy, so the question is how does one change the system?

I'm not quite caught up on the laws of Germany, because I've never actually had a reason to. I would be extremely supportive of it, for my titles would actually give me powers in the nation again.

Maybe gradually install it, by keeping the Bundestag and Chancellor in place under the Kaiser like the old days.

That's certainly the most feasible. But would there be a vote? Would politicians have to be pressured to propose bringing back the monarchy? Marches and protests?

[Engleberg]

I'm not quite caught up on the laws of Germany, because I've never actually had a reason to. I would be extremely supportive of it, for my titles would actually give me powers in the nation again.

Maybe gradually install it, by keeping the Bundestag and Chancellor in place under the Kaiser like the old days.

That's certainly the most feasible. But would there be a vote? Would politicians have to be pressured to propose bringing back the monarchy? Marches and protests?

Most likely there would be people opposed to it; I would expect those in the left wing to be the first. Although, some may be fine with it replacing the position of Bundesprasident, since Gauck does nothing.

[Tuthina]

In most cases, the odds are low. It is difficult to undo the republican mentality of the population after a certain point without the current government screwing up big time. The only successful restoration I know in the modern age is that of Cambodia, and it seems that the most likely restoration around would be that of Brazil.

It seems to me that a good spokesman is what's needed, someone around thirty years of age, with extensive historical and political knowledge that supports monarchism and can hold an audience. If they push the right buttons and play off of complaints towards the republican government, monarchism could at least establish a good foothold.

I highly doubt it would be a practical plan due to the meticulous planning and execution it would take, and even then it would still need major failure in the republican government system to trigger the final restoration.

[Herargon]

Let's try to bring this thread back.

How would one go about restoring the monarchy of their once-proud-turned-republic home country?

I read somewhere that 52% of young Germans want the monarchy back; so possibly a change in the constitution could bring my homeland back to greatness.

Those percentages are lower, more like 5% or 10-30%. And if the new German monarchy is aggressive, like Wilhelm II-style, then I'm glad it is low.
Were it to become a monarchy that fits more in a democratic, non-militaristic and free country, like Germany is nowadays, then I'd love if those percentages rose up.

I'm not quite caught up on the laws of Germany, because I've never actually had a reason to. I would be extremely supportive of it, for my titles would actually give me powers in the nation again.

Maybe gradually install it, by keeping the Bundestag and Chancellor in place under the Kaiser like the old days.

That's certainly the most feasible. But would there be a vote? Would politicians have to be pressured to propose bringing back the monarchy? Marches and protests?

Pressure will only give those politicians more incentive to NOT get a monarchy. I think that if there is a big problem, like a revolution or war and devastation coming, that then the monarchs can propose to help the old government. After the war, they could assest power calmly, if they present themselves as ''father of the victims'', and invest into public works and reconstruction, whilst also trying to get a bit more prestige themselves.

That way a monarchy can come faster. If we are going the peaceful way instead of war, then I think that it would be more effective if there was an issue like extreme right coming up, and the probably impopular cabinet claiming they do not have enough support to fight against it.
Then the monarchy can step up, and say that they dislike how the cabinet is not obeying their own treaties, nor helping the people.
As time passes on, you could have organised pro-monarchist demonstrations that begin in one city near the monarch; a protest vote against the current government and against far-X ism. As more and more people begin to demonstrate and as it spreads out, and the monarch firmly but calmly rejects violence and the throne because he himself has not got enough support, the monarchist movement will grow stronger.
At some point, the government is forced to listen and step down , and then the monarch has the power - but as president.
He then should institute a reform and ask another person to form the government (so the monarch won't become impopular nor be blamed if the government falls).

An even more peaceful way is through elections. The monarch runs as leader of a moderate party. This one actually did happen with success; in Romania, the former monarch got elected. The next parts didn't happen though; that a person, after the end of his (if, hopefully successful) term, asked to make him a honorary monarch, and that it then becomes formalised.

[Herargon]

I read somewhere that 52% of young Germans want the monarchy back; so possibly a change in the constitution could bring my homeland back to greatness.

The Hohenzollerns are still quite alive and well, aren't they? I would personally welcome the return of the Kaiser, or Kaiserin, as well as the return of the old German flag.

Of course the current republic wouldn't be very appreciative of any efforts to restore the monarchy, so the question is how does one change the system?

Well, good luck with the return of the old German flag. Nowadays it is associated with nazism, since it has had been used as well from 1933 up until 1935.

[Engleberg]

The Hohenzollerns are still quite alive and well, aren't they? I would personally welcome the return of the Kaiser, or Kaiserin, as well as the return of the old German flag.

Of course the current republic wouldn't be very appreciative of any efforts to restore the monarchy, so the question is how does one change the system?

Well, good luck with the return of the old German flag. Nowadays it is associated with nazism, since it has had been used as well from 1933 up until 1935.

That's a damn shame, right there. The tricolour was a beautiful flag, much better than the modern tricolour.

[Diopolis]

Why would anyone want a President with power? A Prime Minister? Chancellor? What's the difference?

That the president has popular mandate given by a population consciously voting for a particular political platform, and is supposed to rise based on merit, not birth.

Srsly

Why is popular sovereignty any more legitimate than traditional sovereignty?